The Gordon Riots in London in 1780 involved several days of unrest and violence
motivated by anti-Catholic sentiment. They began on 2 June 1780 with a large and orderly protest against the Papists Act 1778 (18 Geo. 3. c. 60), which had somewhat reduced official discrimination against British Catholics enacted by the Popery Act 1698 (11 Will. 3. c. 4).
The Protestant Association, headed by Lord George Gordon, MP,
noted that the law (also known as the Catholic Relief Act) enabled Catholics to join the British Army and warned that the relaxation might enable Catholic soldiers to plot treason.
The resultant protest led to widespread rioting and looting, including attacks on the buildings of Newgate Prison and of the Bank of England, and was the most destructive in the history of London.
Violence started on 2 June 1780, with the looting and burning of Catholic chapels in foreign embassies. Local magistrates, afraid of drawing the mob's anger, did not invoke the Riot Act. There was no repression until the government finally sent in the army, resulting in an estimated 300–700 deaths. The main violence lasted until 9 June 1780.
The riots occurred near the height of the American War of Independence of 1775 to 1783,
at a time when the Kingdom of Great Britain, with no major allies, not only had an American colonial rebellion to suppress, but had also become embroiled in wars against France and Spain, and would soon go to war against the Dutch Republic
as well. Public opinion, especially in middle-class and elite circles, repudiated anti-Catholicism and lower-class violence, and rallied behind Lord North's government. Many urgently demanded the formation of a police force. There appeared painted on the wall of Newgate Prison a proclamation that the inmates had been freed by the authority of "His Majesty, King Mob". The term "King Mob" afterwards denoted an unruly and fearsome proletariat.
Edmund Burke later recalled the riots as a dangerous foretaste of the 1789 French Revolution:
Wild and savage insurrection quitted the woods, and prowled about our streets in the name of reform.... A sort of national convention ... nosed parliament in the very seat of its authority; sat with a sort of superintendence over it; and little less than dictated to it, not only laws, but the very form and essence of legislature itself.
The stated intention of the Papists Act 1778 was, as its preamble notes, to mitigate some of the official discrimination against Roman Catholics in Great Britain. It absolved Catholics from taking the religious oath when joining the British Armed Forces as well as granting a few and limited liberties. There were strong expedient reasons for this change. British military forces at the time were stretched very thinly in what had become a global American War of Independence, with conflicts ongoing with France, Spain, and the new United States. The recruitment of Catholics would be a significant help to address this shortfall of manpower.
The 1698 anti-Catholic laws had largely been ignored for many years and were rarely enforced. Because of this, many leading Catholics were opposed to the repeal of these laws, fearing it would stir up anti-Catholic sentiment for little practical return. It was also pointed out that large numbers of Catholics, recruited in Ireland and the Scottish Highlands, were already serving in the military. In spite of this, the government decided to press ahead with the Bill, and had it introduced in Parliament by Sir George Savile.
The Protestant Association of London had the support of leading Calvinist religious figures, including Rowland Hill, Erasmus Middleton, and John Rippon. Lord George Gordon became its president in 1779, in an effort to force the repeal of the Papists Act. An articulate propagandist, though eccentric, Gordon inflamed the mob with fears of Papism and a return to absolute monarchical rule. He implied that Catholics in the military would, given a chance, join forces with their co-religionists on the Continent and attack Britain. He enjoyed popularity in Scotland where he took part in a successful campaign to prevent the same legislation from being introduced into Scots law, although the Act continued in force in England and Wales and in Ireland. The success in obstructing the law in Scotland led Gordon to believe he could enjoy similar success in the rest of Britain and Ireland. Early in 1780 Gordon had several audiences with King George III but was unable to convince him of what he saw as the dangers of the act. George III initially humoured Gordon, but grew increasingly irritated with him and eventually refused any future audiences.
The political climate deteriorated rapidly. On 29 May 1780, Gordon called a meeting of the Protestant Association, and his followers subsequently marched on the House of Commons to deliver a petition demanding the repeal of the Act, a proceeding which set off a riot.
After the first march to Parliament, further riots occurred involving groups whose grievances were nationalist, economic, or political, rather than religious. Aside from the issue of Catholic emancipation, it has also been suggested that the driving force of the riots was Britain's poor economic situation: the loss of trade during the war had led to falling wages, rising prices, and periodic unemployment. As Rudé noted, there was no general attack on the Catholic community, "the victims of the riots" being distinguished by the fact they were "on the whole, persons of substance".
Voting in parliamentary elections was restricted by a property threshold, so most Londoners were unable to vote and many hoped for reforms to make Parliament more representative of the people. However, Paul Monod has argued that "no matter how much one would like to interpret the Gordon Riots ... as economically motivated, they remain fundamentally anti-Catholic in character".
Shortly after the riots had broken out, the Duke of Richmond suggested that they were directly attributable to the passing of the Quebec Act six years before, which, among other provisions, removed the reference to the Protestant faith from the oath of allegiance, and guaranteed free practice of Catholicism. This view was ridiculed by many of his colleagues.